Ahmed v. Ringler et al
Filing
61
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/27/17: The findings and recommendations filed on January 4, 2017 57 are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's motion to stay 55 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint 40 is DENIED. Defendant's motion to modify the scheduling order 47 is GRANTED. The parties are permitted thirty days from the date of this order to file any pretrial motions. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ABDIKIDAR AHMED,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-1050 MCE DB P
v.
ORDER
S. RINGLER,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
17
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendant Ringler conducted unnecessary
19
searches of plaintiff’s cell on November 21, 2012 and May 7, 2013 in retaliation for plaintiff’s
20
submission of grievances regarding Ringler’s July 2, 2012 search of his cell. The matter was
21
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
22
302.
On January 4, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
23
24
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
25
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff
26
filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 58.) Defendant Ringler filed a
27
response to the objections. (ECF No. 59.)
28
////
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
2
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
3
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
4
analysis.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1.
7
The findings and recommendations filed on January 4, 2017 (ECF No. 57) are
ADOPTED in full;
8
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 55) is DENIED;
9
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint (ECF No. 40) is DENIED;
10
4.
Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED;
12
5.
The parties are permitted thirty days from the date of this order to file any pretrial
13
motions.
11
14
15
and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2017
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?